Techdirt. Stories filed under "puc"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "puc"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:21:42 PDTJudge Says Uber Should Be Shut Down In CaliforniaMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150715/16092631654/judge-says-uber-should-be-shut-down-california.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150715/16092631654/judge-says-uber-should-be-shut-down-california.shtmlUber drivers were clearly contractors rather than employees (unlike a California labor commission ruling that went the other way). However, on Wednesday afternoon an administrative judge in California declared that the company's services should be suspended statewide for supposedly refusing to provide data that it's required to provide under a 2013 law that helped "legalize" the service (that was already widely in use at the time).

Uber, for its part, insists that it delivered the necessary info and promises to appeal the ruling (which also includes a $7.3 million fine, which is pocket change for the company right now). It also appears to hint that the information that the Public Utilities Commission is seeking would actually violate the company's privacy policies.

In a statement, an Uber spokeswoman called the decision "deeply disappointing."

"We will appeal the decision as Uber has already provided substantial amounts of data to the California Public Utilities Commission, information we have provided elsewhere with no complaints," spokeswoman Laura Zapata said. "Going further risks compromising the privacy of individual riders as well as driver-partners."

The details seem to involve what kinds of data Uber was supposed to turn over, including specifics about requests from users with service animals or wheelchairs. Uber apparently didn't have the ability to track that information in the past, though it does now. On the flip side, the California PUC argues that companies in the space were given a year to comply, and thus Uber had plenty of time to make sure it was compliant and failed to do so.

As part of the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing in California, companies are required to prepare an annual report with data about rides provided through the app.

Uber's 2014 report did not include hard numbers on customers who requested cars to accommodate service animals or wheelchairs, nor how often those requests were fulfilled, the judge said. The company also didn't provide raw numbers on requests for rides tabulated by ZIP Code, and how many of those rides were fulfilled, instead providing “aggregates, averages and percentages,” and a heat map showing which ZIP Codes generally saw the most requests.

Uber also failed to submit complete information on drivers who have been suspended or committed a violation, the judge said. The company did not provide the “cause of the incident reported,” or the amount paid out by any insurance company other than Uber's.

It would appear that the company and its lawyers are going to remain rather busy for the foreseeable future. It is, frankly, somewhat surprising that Uber didn't do more to comply with these requests, even if it disagrees with need to hand over such information. Not fully complying was always going to end badly. There may be legitimate privacy arguments for Uber to make here, but it doesn't seem like playing games with the CPUC is the best way to make that point.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>another day, another problemhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150715/16092631654Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:49:40 PSTAnd... Yet Another Regulator Flips Out About Uber, Tries To Kill ItMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/18303421831/yet-another-regulator-flips-out-about-uber-tries-to-kill-it.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/18303421831/yet-another-regulator-flips-out-about-uber-tries-to-kill-it.shtmlall too well has decided to give Uber all the free Streisand Effect publicity it needs to build its reputation in the market by trying to pass legislation to shut it down. This time it's the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, which is looking to pass some new regulations that effectively make it impossible for Uber to operate its innovative car/taxi service (which is incredibly popular with users) in Denver. Of course, all this has really done is give Uber the perfect opportunity to get tons of attention for its service in Denver as it urges Uber fans to speak out against the regulatory changes.

Uber points out that the proposed changes will basically make its business model illegal in multiple ways -- saying that you can't price based on distance, effectively keeping Uber cars outside of downtown areas that taxis populate, and forbidding Uber's key relationship set up with drivers (independent partners). As Uber points out, these rules don't serve any legitimate regulatory purpose other than to prop up the taxi business model and hurt the disruptive upstart:

These rules are not designed to promote safety, nor improve quality of service. They are intended to stop innovation, protect incumbents, hurt independent drivers, and shut down Uber in Denver.

Of course, we've seen this before. In a bunch of places where Uber operates, the service faces regulatory crackdown by local regulators who seem to do a lot more to protect incumbent taxi services than they do to figure out what benefits the users the most. This gets back to that concept of corruption laundering that I've mentioned a few times. The regulations can be presented as having good intentions: they want to protect riders from getting scammed by unscrupulous drivers, and they want to make sure the market is safe and efficient. But, as with so many regulatory schemes, what can be positioned as having the best of intentions also serves a secondary purpose: to allow incumbents the ability to thrive, while blocking out competition and the impact of disruptive innovation. That seems to be the case here yet again.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>regulation-2.0https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130130/18303421831Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:35:45 PSTCalifornia PUC Cracks Down On Innovative Ride Sharing Operations As Another Batch Of Taxi Drivers Sue UberMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/16194521069/california-puc-cracks-down-innovative-ride-sharing-operations-as-another-batch-taxi-drivers-sue-uber.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/16194521069/california-puc-cracks-down-innovative-ride-sharing-operations-as-another-batch-taxi-drivers-sue-uber.shtmlregulatory and legal fights that Uber has been dealing with lately. The company, which basically has set up a super convenient way for people to book a ride (and, in some cases, taxis), keeps running up against a combination of local regulatory agencies who tend to feel that they get to lord over anyone who attempts to do anything involving driving people around for money, as well as existing limo and taxi providers who fear a more efficient system (especially when they profit off of inefficiencies). Of course, some politicians and taxi/limo drivers recognize that greater efficiency is actually good for everyone, allowing a more convenient and useful system, and filling in gaps when regulated supply strains the system.

However, too many are just focused on the status quo. And this isn't to say that there isn't a place for regulatory bodies to ensure that cabs and limos are safe and that they don't take advantage of passengers. But the line between protecting passengers and protecting legacy players from competition sure does become a blurry line very, very quickly. And this week a bunch of these companies have run into legal problems on their home turf. Uber, specifically, has has been sued in San Francisco by some cabbies demanding that the company be shut down. They claim that Uber's car hailing service is really an unregulated taxi service, and thus, unfairly competing with them.

Perhaps the bigger issue, however, is that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has fined Uber and two other companies, Lyft and SideCar (who offer ridesharing). As that Wired link notes, this seems to be a clash between two core concepts that seem to thrive in San Francisco: on the one hand, freedom to innovate and disrupt and, on the other hand, support in government intervention for the public good. I'd argue that the two concepts aren't in quite as much conflict as the article suggests, if the intervention actually is for the public good. The problem is that's not really clear here, and it's not hard to see how it's really for the sake of limiting competition.

SideCar points out that this is a case of regulators not knowing how to classify an innovation:

asserting that we are operating a transportation carrier... is like saying Airbnb is a hotel chain, that Travelocity is an airline, or that eBay is a store

Lyft, similarly, suggests that there's a problem in regulators taking a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole, because they've never seen a square before:

Transportation has historically been a highly regulated industry, and the existing regulations weren’t designed to imagine a world where two neighbors who have never met are able to connect within a matter of minutes to share a ride across town.

Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, told Wired that the PUC fine is particularly ridiculous in its case, since it only works with drivers who are already regulated by the PUC. It's just offering them another channel for finding customers. But under the PUC's ruling, it appears that they want those people to be doubly regulated, which seems completely wasteful:

Our contention is that if you read the regulations, such a notion doesn’t make sense. Are we supposed to give drivers a second drug and alcohol test? Are we supposed to have cars inspected by the DMV a second time after they’ve already inspected (our) partners’ vehicles?

In the end, you have to wonder if the role that regulators have still makes sense for these kinds of innovators. Yes, there are issues about safety and avoiding scams, but the various companies have built in systems to deal with that -- such as driver ratings and public reviews. Those types of things weren't really possible in the past, which is why you needed a PUC to make sure taxidrivers weren't ripping people off. But now the "PUC" can be the public itself. But... that only works if you believe the regulations are supposed to help the public, rather than the legacy players.